White House Must Answer For Missing Emails

Lucas123 writes "A District Court judge this week ruled in favor of a Washington-based watchdog group, allowing them to question White House officials about missing emails involving controversial issues. The subjects include the release of the identity of a former CIA operative, the reasons for launching the war in Iraq and actions by the US Department of Justice. The group had filed suit [PDF] last May against the White House Office of Administration, seeking access to White House email under the federal Freedom of Information Act. The discovery ruling is bringing to light issues of email retention in businesses and other private organizations. We've previously discussed the White House's difficulties with email."

Re:How will they enforce it?

[milsoRgen]

Technically the congress could order the sgt. at arms to haul the people in to testify

But which one to use?

Wilson Livingood [wikipedia.org] or Terrance W. Gainer [wikipedia.org]

I say send in Gainer to 'em soften up before Livingood can come in and finish the job.

Re:Expected answer

[GodfatherofSoul]

If they lost them, which they couldn't have (and after Senator Leahy called them out on this [npr.org] they somewhat admitted that they were lost not destroyed), then they've broken the Presidential Records Act [wikipedia.org]. Actually, we probably have evidence of this already since White House staffers like Karl Rove have been circumventing official record keeping by using Republican National Committee email accounts for official business [house.gov]. Amazing how a little oversight uncovers so much dirt...

Re:How will they enforce it?

[rpillala]

If you're referring to John Conyers asking Mukasey about the CIA tapes, then that was the question. Conyers asked if Mukasey was prepared to begin an investigation into the possibility of criminal wrongdoing in the case of destroyed CIA tapes. Mukasey said "that's a direct question, so let me give a direct answer: no I am not."

The Daily Show may be a fake news show but there's information there.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[freedom_india]

Its a House contempt proceeding so it would be Livingood's office.

No, its Not. The Sgt At Arms is responsible for the safety and security of congress critters, senators, visiting dignitaries. That's all.
Unless they see a threat to lives of congress critters, they won't do a job of arresting anybody.
However, the House could order DC Sherrif to prosecute Bush and Cheney as individuals maximum.

I bet it would be one helluva gunfight to watch DC cops battle it out with Secret Service.
I can see the headlines in Fox TV now: "President under attack by crazy cops. 11 dead. News at 11." Cheney goes into the bunker and issues a statement that DC cops are Iran's handymen and that we must bomb Iran now if we are to live.

Re:Expected answer

[PixelScuba]

When the Clintons left office, their staff broke equipment before leaving and violated the rest. For example, they would leave pornographic images in the photocopier. Think of it as the previous management of SlashDot leaving Goatse as the new logo when they left. Of course, let's not forget about all the silverware and furniture that Hillary stole like it was cheap hotel towels.

Not even remotely true. [commondreams.org] I have work tomorrow and it's late. You're a blatant troll and I don't have time to discredit all of the obvious Clinton lies you've spouted. It should be enough to just throw out your first argument... but I'll even add a bonus link... Clinton Did not fire attorneys in the middle of their terms. [thinkprogress.org] Yes, all presidents fire attorneys when they begin... but only the current president hid conversations using RNC accounts and fired attorneys in the middle of their term for purely political reasons (The only attorneys fired in the middle of their terms from 1981 to 2006 were for misconduct... which was never cited as a reason for the current firings).

Like I said, it's late and I have work. Quit trolling and read some real information.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[HidingMyName]

As mentioned in one of the other replies most likely Livingood, since he works for the House of Representatives, who voted on contempt today. If I understand, there are 2 forms of contempt of congress, typically congress uses a variant that goes through the executive branch for enforcement, but there is also a variant called inherent contempt [wikipedia.org] that is enforced directly by congress, via the sargeant at arms. However Gainer's web page [senate.gov] has an interesting quote (maybe a hint?).

The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[10101001 10101001]

as he said the Eighth Amendment bar against "cruel and unusual punishment" was only intended to apply to criminal punishments:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ..

If you're torturing someone for evidence in a trial....

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

... and if it's not as a means to collect evidence for a trial, then clearly due process of law is not being followed, which means you can't torture the person* (ie, deprive them of life) or detain the person (ie, dperive them of liberty). Or, simple put, torture is prohibited by the 5th Amendment.

I always love it how those who wish to do narrow the rights of others so gravity towards focusing on a narrow interpretation of one Amendment or clause, completely disregarding how another smacks in the face of their analysis.

*Note: This isn't mean to say that you could legalize torture, just that this clause alone doesn't stipulate the absolute illegality of torutre.